Stephen Flynn, the SNP’s Westminster leader, has written to the independent adviser on ministerial standards, Laurie Magnus, to demand that he investigate whether Keir Starmer misled the public over Peter Mandelson.

In a statement Flynn accused Starmer of “making contradictory claims about the process followed when appointing him to the highest diplomatic office in these isles.”

He added:

Today Keir Starmer has been caught in what appears to be nothing less than a shocking lie – he claimed Peter Mandelson passed security vetting when we now know the very opposite to be true. These new revelations are the most serious yet for the Prime Minister.

No 10 said that Starmer was only made aware that Mandelson failed his vetting this week (see 6.09pm).

Downing Street has just issued a statement saying Starmer did not know that Mandelson had failed the vetting process until earlier this week. A No 10 spokesperson said:

The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. The decision to grant Developed Vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO.

Neither the prime minister, nor any government minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted Developed Vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week.

Once the prime minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the Developed Vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons.

The government is committed to complying with the humble address in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the humble address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting.

Pippa Crerar is the Guardian’s political editor.

At the end of last year Sir Olly Robbins, the head of the Foreign Office, gave evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee about the vetting process ahead of Peter Mandelson as ambassador.

The committee now intends to summon Robbins for a follow-up hearing.

Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, told the Guardian:

Looking at the evidence that was given and the letters that have been written, to be charitable, there are glaring holes. It really is a question of whether we were knowingly misled.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, says that Keir Starmer “blatantly lied” at his press conference on 5 February (see 5.11pm) and should resign.

Keir Starmer said in February that the security services had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.

Now we discover that he has blatantly lied, the Prime Minister should resign.

Vote Reform on May 7th to make it happen.

Here is the full quote from what Keir Starmer said during a Q&A with journalists on 5 February this year when asked about the Peter Mandelson scandal. At that event, in Hastings, Starmer clearly said that Mandelson had passed security vetting.

According to this report in the National, Starmer said:

There was a due diligence exercise that culminated in questions being asked because I wanted to know the answer to certain issues.

That’s why those questions were asked. The answer to those questions were not truthful.

There was then, I should add, security vetting carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him clearance for the role, and you have to go through that before you take up the post.

Clearly, both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again.

I’ve already strengthened the due process. I think we need to look at the security vetting, because it now transpires that what was being said was not true.

UPDATE: Here is the video clip.

The Green party is also calling for Keir Starmer’s resignation over what he said about Peter Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US – and what he subsequently said about.

The party issued a statement from the Green MP Siân Berry saying:

Keir Starmer has lied and lied again over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson and he must resign. Starmer told parliament ‘due process’ had been followed. This report makes clear that was untrue.

He has tried to blame the vetting process, when in fact it is reported that a decision was taken to ignore a failed vetting. We need answers on what and when Starmer and David Lammy knew about this decision to overrule the vetting report.

The precise reasons for Mandelson’s failure to pass this vetting must be made public, even though it was known to everyone that Mandelson was friends with the world’s most notorious paedophile prior to the appointment. It is outrageous that it is being reported that senior government officials are now considering whether to withhold from parliament documents that show Mandelson wasn’t given security clearance.

No more buck passing, no more mysteriously vanishing mobile phones, the public need the truth.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, also suggesting that this could be a resignation matter for Keir Starmer. He has posted this on social media.

If Keir Starmer has misled Parliament and lied to the British people, he has to go.

Although this is quite similar to what Kemi Badenoch is saying (see 4.06pm), she is saying Starmer did mislead MPs, while Davey is still treating that as unresolved (“if”). As explained earlier, on the basis of what we know, the misleading parliament charge is contestable. (See 4.35pm.)

But Davey says lying to the public (ie, at a press conference) should also be a resignation matter, and on this Starmer is on more shaky ground. (See 4.35pm.)

UPDATE: Davey has also issued a slightly longer version of the social media post. He says:

Keir Starmer had already made a catastrophic error of judgment. Now it looks as though he has also misled parliament and lied to the British public. If that is the case, he must go.

Labour came into Government on a promise to clean up politics. Instead we’re seeing the same old sleaze, scandal and cover-ups as we did under the Conservatives

The Conservatives have sent out a briefing notes with the quotes from Keir Starmer when he told MPs three times at PMQs on 10 September last year (twice in response to questions from Kemi Badenoch, and once in response to a question from Ed Davey) that “due process” was followed when Peter Mandelson was appointed.

Starmer said:

As [Badenoch] and the house would expect, full due process was followed during this appointment, as it is with all ambassadors.

And then:

As I say, full due process was gone through in relation to this appointment, as would be expected.

And then:

As I have made clear to the house, full due process was gone through when the appointment was made.

As explained earlier, it is not clear yet whether Starmer was told Mandelson had failed his security vetting, and that the Foreign Office had decided to overrule this.

At a subsequent press conference in February this year, Starmer said there was “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.”

Given that Mandelson did not pass the vetting, and that his appointment was only allowed because the Foreign Office took a decision to overrule this judgment, it is hard to see how the claim that the vetting led to clearance can be described as accurate. But the ministerial code (see 4.06pm) does not particularly address misleading or lying to journalists.

It is only deliberately misleading parliament that is a resignation offence. And Starmer might argue that due process was followed – because due process allows a vetting failure to be overruled. That is an argument that might appeal to lawyers – but not laymen. At least Starmer did not try to claim the normal process had been followed, because that would definitely be untrue.

Kemi Badenoch has also posted this about the Guardian exclusive saying Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US.

Badenoch says:

Last September, Keir Starmer told Parliament three times that “full due process” was followed over the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

We now know the Prime Minister misled the House.

The Prime Minister must take responsibility.

The Tory leader is implying that Starmer should resign – without saying so explicitly.

The ministerial code says:

Ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the prime minister.

As opposition leader, when he was up against Boris Johnson, Starmer asked in January 2022 Johnson if the code applied to him. When Johnson replied “of course”, Starmer said:

I think the prime minister said yes, he agrees that the code does apply to him. Therefore, if he misled parliament, he must resign.

This is what Paul Lewis, Henry Dyer and Pippa Crerer say in their Guardian story about the possibility of Starmer misleading MPs.

The revelation that the now former ambassador was not granted clearance by UK Security Vetting (UKSV), a division of the Cabinet Office that scrutinises the background of prospective civil servants, will raise further questions about the prime minister’s judgment in appointing him.

Starmer will also be pressed over whether he misled the public in remarks about the security vetting process, which he said had given Mandelson “clearance for the role”.

It is not known whether the prime minister was made aware that his pick for Washington ambassador had not been granted approval by UKSV, which conveys its decision as a recommendation to government departments. Neither is it known who in the Foreign Office made the decision to overrule UKSV.

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, has told MPs that the BBC’s plan to cut 2,000 jobs is a matter of “real concern”, Aletha Adu and Mark Sweney report.

Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.

On the first anniversary of the landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex, the campaign group that brought the original case has delivered a letter to the prime minister calling for action.

As reported earlier this week, the UK government has yet to approve EHRC guidance on the practical implementation of the ruling – essentially, whether trans men and women can continue to use services and facilities that align with their lived gender – and indeed the Equality and Human Rights Commission has just amended its original draft.

Bridget Phillipson, the equalities minister (and education secretary) said she wasn’t able to lay the draft before parliament for approval because we’re in an election period for devolved governments. Today For Women Scotland questions whether that’s really true, and calls on the UK government to take its lead from Scottish Labour.

During the Holyrood campaign, leader Anas Sarwar committed to enforcing the supreme court ruling, and bypassing the EHRC guidance if necessary.

In its letter, FWS says:

Scottish Labour, like the Scottish Conservatives, has now committed to abide by the law and take action to rectify some of the egregious failures across public services in Scotland. We would urge the UK government to be similarly robust and stand up for women’s legal rights. We are deeply disappointed that lies and obfuscation about the law continue to go unchallenged by your government.

It’s understood that the EHRC’s amended draft lessens the impact on businesses and better balances the protection of single-sex spaces with the lives of transgender people. But it also has prompted anger from advocates of the supreme court’s decision, who criticised “horse-trading” between the EHRC and ministers.

Peter Mandelson failed his security vetting clearance but the decision was overruled by the Foreign Office to ensure he could take up his post as ambassador to the US, an investigation by the Guardian can reveal. Paul Lewis, Henry Dyer and Pippa Crerar have the story.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the SNP’s plan to cap the cost of some essential food items would be “risky” and could lead to shortages of these items. In his initial response to the SNP manifesto, David Phillips, head of devolved and local government finance at the IFS, says:

The manifesto also pledges to establish statutory price ceilings on 20 to 50 essential food items, in order to prevent cost-of-living pressures from harming families’ nutrition. If these ceilings are set above market prices, the proposals could turn out to be toothless. But if these ceilings are below prevailing market prices, this proposal would be very radical and risky.

Unless there are specific anti-competitive reasons for elevated prices, ceilings could have the unintended consequence of creating shortages of these items, by causing demand to exceed supply. Indeed, suppliers or retailers could also deliberately restrict the availability of these items in Scotland. Products could also be reformulated to reduce production costs, which could adversely affect their quality.

Higher prices often reflect spikes in the costs faced by producers, so a price ceiling may cause some of them to stop producing. The manifesto indicates that a framework to support Scottish producers would be put in place, but it is unclear what form this would take. If it were financial support for producer when costs increased, then it would probably be more efficient for the government to redirect cash directly to households rather than to cap prices and support producers.

In his overall verdict, Phillips makes a point that the IFS has been making about almost all the Welsh and Scottish election manifestos it has been scrutinising.

In a pattern familiar by now from several other manifestos in the devolved elections, the SNP manifesto pledges additional spending – costing an estimated £1.4bn a year by 2031–32 – without credibly saying how it would pay for this. A large proportion is from assumed efficiencies – on top of the substantial savings already assumed in existing Scottish government spending plans. More likely in reality, paying for these plans would require further tax rises or deeper cuts to lower-priority spending.

There is a lot of scepticism about the SNP’s plan to cap the cost of essential food items in supermarkets amongst the online commentatiat.

This is from the Financial Times’s political commentator, Stephen Bush.

Not content with beating Labour on perceived competence, economic management and leadership, the SNP have unveiled a bold new policy to outflank Anas Sarwar on “really really stupid responses to the global resource crisis”.

James Ball, political editor of the New World, agrees. He has posted this on Bluesky.

If you’re going to introduce a command economy for bread, though, why not for water? And energy? Nappies? Baby milk? Kids clothes? What about books?

But Ball also thinks the policy may never happen, because it will turn out that (contrary to what John Swinney said) the Scottish government will find out it does not have the power to do this.

(It’s being mooted so that Westminster blocks it. And they’d almost certainly take the bait and block it. But politically surely it would be better not to, and leave the SNP holding the bag on a policy they surely know they don’t actually want to go anywhere near.)

BTW as an observant friend notes Westminster wouldn’t need to go anywhere near the IMA [Internal Market Act] to block this. C7 in schedule 5 of the Scotland Act seems pretty clear this is a reserved power

Paul Hutcheon, the Daily Record political editor, says a legal dispute could take years to resolve.

If the SNP wins the election, this policy will be dragged through the courts for years.

Kieran Andrews from ITV Borders thinks a prolonged court battle might suit the SNP.

The UK internal market act would make this…tricky at best. But it’s the kind of fight the SNP will think benefits them politically. Interesting too that the idea was floated a couple of years ago by Stephen Flynn at SNP autumn conference.

And Matthew Holehouse, public policy editor at the Economist, argues that’s the whole point.

Looks like a policy laser-targeted to start a fight with Westminster/the courts over the UK Internal Market Act and market-access principles; and with it, attempt to hitch the old the constitutional fight to the crisis du jour. If you’re debating whether the SNP understands markets, you’re losing..

Conor Matchett from the Scottish Sun says the same.

Has nothing to do with actually being a response to the global resource crisis, and is instead mere grist for the grievance mill. It’s even acknowledged in the manifesto that UK Gov will likely block it via the IMA

Reform UK is pro-union. But earlier this year Malcolm Offord, its Scottish leader, caused a stir when he suggested that, after 10 years, he might be open to a second independence referendum, and Nigel Farage, the party leader, has given a similar message in an interview with the Scotsman.

We believe in the United Kingdom. We think it’d be bad for both parties.

Look, we were told in Scotland in 2014, and the whole country was told in 2016, that these referendums were once in a generation and we just stick to that.

But, he went on:

If at some point in the future this issue comes back, then it’s probably quite reasonable to Scotland [to have a referendum]. It’s not relevant now, but I can’t tell you how people will feel in 20 years’ time.

This messaging will be seen as a pitch for the support of pro-independence Scots who don’t want to vote for the SNP.

When John Swinney was asked about this at his press conference this morning, he made it clear that he did not see Farage as a closet nationalist. (See 10.56am.)

But Russell Findlay, the Scottish Tory leader, took them seriously. In a response, he said:

Nigel Farage’s incendiary comments confirm beyond doubt that Reform are not a unionist party.

Talking up the prospect of another unwanted and divisive referendum is a gift to John Swinney’s SNP.

The Scottish Retail Consortium has dismissed the SNP’s proposal for price caps on essential food items as a 1970s-style gimmick. In response to today’s announcement from John Swinney (see 10.27am), Ewan MacDonald-Russell, deputy head of the SRC, said:

Elevated food prices are a direct result of soaring supply chain and commodity costs and frankly relentless rises in statutory costs imposed by governments. Yet despite this, the fiercely competitive grocery market in Scotland has helped to keep food prices among the most affordable of all the large European economies.

Supermarkets have always run on very slim margins, especially when compared with other parts of the food supply chain, but profits have fallen significantly in recent times. Even so, retailers continue to invest heavily to keep prices down, expand their affordable food ranges, lock in the price of many essentials, and raise pay for staff.

Many of the costs keeping shop prices high are now arising from the muddle of new regulations and taxes coming from government policies. Rather than recreating 1970s-style price controls and potty gimmicks, public policy should get serious and focus on cutting retailers’ costs so that resources can be directed to keeping prices as low as possible for customers.

Keir Starmer told tech company executives today that the government expected them to show “real world changes” to the way they are operating in response to the consultation under way about a possible social media ban for under-16s.

Asked what happened at the No 10 meeting this morning, the PM’s spokesperson told reporters:

The prime minister called in senior leaders from major social media companies to Downing Street today to press for faster progress on protecting children online. He was clear that companies must be able to show real world changes that make their platform safer for children …

The message was simple: no free pass, no delay in putting children’s safety first.

The spokesperson said the consultation, which is due to conclude in the early summer, would definitely result in action. “It’s not a question of if we will act, but how,” the spokesperson said.

The government has already included powers in the children’s wellbeing and schools bill that will allow it to impose restrictions on social media companies quickly (using secondary legislation, not primary legislation) when the consultation is over.

But the spokesperson did not say whether the consultation would result in an Australia-style ban on social media for under-16s or (as Starmer seems to prefer) just a ban on particular features, like those that encourage addictive scrolling.

The spokesperson also said that the consequences for social media companies would be “stark” if they did not act. But he did not elaborate on what those consequences would be.

Downing Street has said the government is launching an investigation into claims made by the BBC that some migrants are being advised to make false claims in order to remain in the UK. (See 9.35am.)

Asked about the stories, the PM’s spokesperson told reporters at the lobby briefing:

Both the Home Office and Immigration Advice Authority are investigating the claims made by the BBC, both yesterday and today, to ensure anyone potentially abusing our immigration system is held accountable.

Any attempt to misuse protections designed to protect genuine victims from the devastation of domestic abuse is shameful and completely unacceptable.

The home secretary has been clear that those trying to defraud the British people to remain in the UK will have their application refused and find themselves on a one way flight out of Britain.

Where unethical and illegal practices are identified and evidence exists, legal practitioners will be referred to the police through the relevant regulatory body.

Asked if the government thought asylum claims are being checked properly, the spokesperson said:

The asylum system is built on robust safeguards, so every claim is rigorously and fairly assessed, abuse is actively uncovered, and these procedures are continually reviewed to shut down misuse.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson was asked if Wes Streeting was setting out the government’s position when he suggested on LBC this morning that welfare spending should be cut to fund higher defence spending. (See 12.13pm.)

The spokesperson said the government was determined to ensure that the defence investment plan (delayed, but due to be published soon) was “fit for the threats we face”.

But he also said that, as the Treasury minister James Murray said in interviews yesterday, defence and welfare was not a “zero-sum choice” (ie, the government does not have to choose between one or the other).

And he said the government wanted to get more people into work, “which is the best way to get the welfare bill down in the long term”.

Asked if the welfare bill was too big, the spokesperson said welfare needed to be reformed to get more people into work. He said measures taking affect this month relating will save £2bn by the end of this decade.

Asked again if the welfare budget was too big, the spokesperson just repeated the point about the system needing reform. Getting more people into work was the best way to get the bill down, he said.

The spokesperson gave much the same answer when asked if No 10 agreed with Streeting that benefits should be cut to fund higher defence spending.

(What Streeting was saying and what No 10 was saying were not incompatible. But there was a clear difference of emphasis.)

Keir Starmer has told social media bosses “things can’t go on like this” in a Downing Street meeting over internet safety, Dan Milmo and Kiran Stacey report.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has said the government wants to cut the welfare bill.

He made the comment in an interview on LBC where he suggested that he would like savings from the benefits budget to be used to fund higher defence spending.

In a speech on Tuesday night, George Robertson, the former defence secretary and former Nato secretary general who led the government’s strategic defence review, called for a big increase in military spending, saying the government “cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget”.

In his interview, Streeting implied he agreed. He said:

Yes, we do need to put more money into defence. We have been putting more money into defence, but we will need more.

Asked if he accepted that welfare spending needed to be cut, Streeting said:

We definitely want to reduce the welfare budget.

Asked if the money should go on defence, Streeting said that was a matter for the chancellor, Rachel Reeves. But he went on:

Just to say that when the chancellor is making decisions, I have no doubt, both from the judgments she’s made and also from the evidence that we’re confronted with, that defence will be much higher on her list of priorities than many of her predecessors.

Streeting did not say what he meant by cutting the welfare budget, or what benefits he would target. Taking a wide definition of what counts as welfare, total government spending under this category is more than £300bn. When politicians talk about cuts, sometime they mean reductions in overall spending, and sometimes they mean reducing the rate at which spending is projected to increase.

The government is particularly concerned about the large rise in the number of young people claiming health and disability benefits, and it wants to arrest this trend and get more of this cohort into work.

But, while ministers have been happy to say they want to curb the rate at which welfare spending in this area is going up, they have been more wary about committing to overall cuts in total welfare spending. And last year, when the government proposed measures to get spending on disability benefits, it had to back down in a painful U-turn.

The government and NHS has missed its target on four-hour waits in emergency departments in England, the Press Association reports. PA says:

Health secretary Wes Streeting said the target was “within touching distance” and insisted that the NHS is “finally moving in the right direction”.

Data published this morning shows that 77.1% of patients in England were seen within four hours in A&E departments last month, up from 74.1% in February.

The government and NHS England had set an interim target of March 2026 for 78% of patients attending A&E to be admitted, discharged or transferred within four hours.

In recent years, the health service has set interim goals for the four-hour standard to bridge the gap between current performance and the 95% target.

Streeting said: “Despite record pressures and strikes, we have come within a cat’s whisker of the ambitious targets we set ourselves. But it’s not enough. There are still too many patients waiting far too long. The NHS is on the road to recovery, and my foot is pressing down hard on the accelerator.”

Speaking to LBC, Streeting said the target was “within touching distance”, adding: “I’m very competitive, and so I’m frustrated because I wanted to kind of come in ahead.

“But the fact is, I mean, regardless of all of that – and I definitely want to give credit to the staff here – we have nonetheless, got the best ambulance response times we’ve seen in half a decade, waiting lists at the lowest levels in three years, and the best A&E performance in four, so at least the NHS is finally moving in the right direction.”

The waiting list for routine hospital treatment fell for the fourth month in a row, the figures show. (See 10.06am.)

In its news release on today’s figures, NHS England said that, despite the March 2026 target being missed, A&E waiting times were at a five-year low.

Q: What lessons to you take from the Hungarian election about standing up to the far right?

Swinney said:

I think the key lesson is that you’ve got to stand up to the far right openly, strongly, setting out your values, seeing how you apply your values to all of your decisions. And my values are for a tolerant, inclusive, welcoming Scotland. That’s the antithesis of what Reform and the far right represent in Scotland.

And I make it abundantly clear today that under no circumstances will I engage in any cooperation or collaboration with Reform in any way, shape or form in the next parliament.

And I think it would be a good thing if other people were much clearer on that question.

That was the final question in the Q&A.

Q: Can you commit to not raising taxes in any circumstances over the next five years? And why don’t you want to narrow the tax gap between Scotland and the rest of the UK?

Swinney said he operated in the real world, and had to respond to events as they happened.

But he said he did not accept the premise of the question. He explained:

The manifesto includes the commitment that the majority of income taxpayers continue to pay less tax than if they lived in the rest of the United Kingdom. And that’s what the position is at this time. And that’s what we’ll continue in the period to come.

Q: Will your plan for maximum prices for essential foods just apply to supermarkets, or will it apply to smaller shops too? Those shops are already struggling.

Swinney says he would consult on this, but the intention is for the policy to apply just to supermarkets, “who can take the financial strain of that particular issue”.

Q: On Sunday you said an independence referendum could be held as soon as 2028. Do you think that is realistic?

Swinney replies:

I think it’s very realistic because I’ve set out to people in Scotland the proposition that I put that, if the SNP wins a majority, we should be able to take forward a referendum on independence. And the legislation is legislation with which we are familiar. It can be passed by the Scottish parliament in proper order to enable that decision to be taken at that time.

Swinney says people are struggling to afford food. That is an “outrage”, he says.

He cannot set prices at the till, he says.

But he says the Scottish government does have powers over public health. He goes on:

It is now impacting on our nation’s nutrition. That is a public health issue and I have public health powers, so I can answer today that, if re-elected, your SNP government will use our public health powers to set a maximum price for essential food items, reducing the price of the weekly shop, putting more money in people’s pockets.

Bread. Milk. Cheese. Eggs. Rice. Chicken. Everyday items that make up a decent diet. Necessities that no one should ever have beyond their means. That’s what you get with a government on Scotland side.

Swinney sums up some manifesto proposals already announced.

A re-elected SNP government will, for people trying to buy their first home, help you onto the property ladder with £10,000 towards your deposit.

For private renters, the right of first refusal to buy your home if it goes on sale for parents will intensify.

Scotland’s childcare revolution. Extending support over the next parliament to every child in the country from nine months old to the end of primary school all year round, and we will build on the success of the baby box with a new welcome to school bag.

Swinney says the Scottish government has already done a lot of concessionary travel, but it wants to go further, he says.

People need to be able to afford to get to the work, to go out and to see friends, to get out and about.

The cost of travelling from Hamilton, for example, to get here today by bus would cost more than £7. From Paisley it would cost £6. From Dumbarton it would cost £9.30. These costs are too high.

So I can announce today that if re-elected, an SNP government will cap bus fares at £2 in every part of Scotland.

John Swinney, the SNP leader and first minister, is speaking now.

He starts saying:

In the two years since becoming first minister, I’ve dedicated every single day to improving the lives of the people of Scotland.

When I took office, I promised I would deliver for Scotland falling waiting times, more operations, GP walk-in clinics, frozen rail fares, peak rail fares abolished, child poverty down and winter fuel payments restored. Friends, I keep my promises. That is my record. It’s a record I’m proud to take to the people of Scotland.

He goes on:

But make no mistake about it, I am only just getting started.

This is a reference to how Swinney was originally seen as a stopgap FM when he was chosen after the surprise resignation of Humza Yousaf.

The SNP is launching its manifesto.

Jenny Gilruth, the Scottish government’s education secretary, is doing the warm-up speech for John Swinney. She says the party is fighting for a fifth successive election win.

She says Swinney stands “head and shoulders” above other candidates for first minister.

The waiting list for routine hospital treatment in England has fallen for the fourth month in a row, the Press Association reports. PA says:

An estimated 7.22 million treatments were waiting to be carried out at the end of February, relating to 6.11 million patients.

This is down from 7.25 million treatments and 6.13 million patients at the end of January.

The number of treatments waiting to be carried out is at its lowest level since February 2023, when it stood at 7.22 million.

The list hit a record high in September 2023, with 7.77 million treatments and 6.50 million patients.

Peter Kyle, the business secretary, was giving interviews this morning to promote a government announcement that will help companies in energy-intensive industries with fuel bills.

As the Department for Business and Trade says in a news release, the existing scheme – the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, or BICS – is being expanded. It says:

Automotive and aerospace, steel, and pharmaceuticals are among the sectors where eligible businesses are to benefit from a one-off additional payment in 2027. This will cover the support firms would have received if BICS had been in place from April 2026.

Eligibility has also been expanded by 40%, from 7,000 to over 10,000 businesses. This targets support at energy-intensive firms on the number one issue they face – high electricity costs.

From April 2027, eligible firms will see electricity bills cut by up to 25 percent. Households will see no increase in their bills as a result.

BICS will exempt eligible businesses from the indirect costs of three electricity schemes: the Renewables Obligation, Feed-in Tariffs, and the Capacity Market. This is worth around £35–£40 per MWh.

It is expected to be worth up to £600m per year from April 2027. Households and other businesses not benefiting will see no increase in their energy bills.

The government says sectors that could benefit “include automotive and aerospace, steel producers, metal fabricators, pharmaceutical and medical supplies companies, recycling businesses, plastic producers, nuclear fuel processors, and cooling and ventilation equipment manufacturers.”

Heather Stewart and Richard Partington have more on this announcement here.

Reform UK has said that it would tighten the law to make it easier to prosecute lawyers and advisers who help people make bogus asylum claims.

Zia Yusuf, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, announced the proposals in response to a major BBC investigation illustrating the extent of fraud in the asylum advice industry.

A report yesterday, by Billy Kenber and Phil Kemp, said “migrants are falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in the country”. Today they have followed it up with a second report about how “migrants are falsely claiming to be victims of domestic abuse in order to stay in the country”.

In a response to the initial investigation, Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, said:

Anyone abusing protections for people fleeing persecution over gender or sexual orientation is beyond contempt.

Let me be clear: try to defraud the British people to enter or remain in the UK and your asylum claim will be refused, your support cut off, and you will find yourself on a one-way flight out of Britain.

Sham lawyers facilitating this abuse will face the full force of the law.

Today Reform UK went further. Yusuf said:

A Reform UK government will put a stop to the legal-industrial complex exploiting the generosity of the British taxpayer. We will criminally prosecute unscrupulous immigration lawyers by creating a new strict liability offence. We will also end legal aid for illegal arrivals and visa overstayers. Those who break into our country will no longer get taxpayer funds to fight their removal.

Reform will ensure our borders are secured, illegal migrants deported and British taxpayers are no longer defrauded in this manner.

Explaining the proposed change, Reform UK said:

A Reform government will make facilitating a false asylum claim a ‘strict liability’ criminal offence. There will be no requirement to prove intent in prosecutions, and this serious crime will be punishable by up to 2 years in jail. Lawyers defrauding the British people in this way will not be tolerated. Similar duties already apply to law firms and lawyers to prevent bribery and tax evasion and it’s reasonable to also apply this to immigration law firms.

The SNP is to bring in a national ban on smartphones in classes if it wins May’s Holyrood election, John Swinney has pledged. As the Press Association reports, the first minister and SNP leader insisted the devices were “a distraction from learning” pledging legislation after the election to ban them across Scotland. PA says:

Currently head teachers have the power to ban smartphones in their schools, with a number of councils in Scotland having acted.

However Swinney said that the SNP will now seek to “ensure a full national ban in Scotland’s classrooms”.

He told the Daily Record newspaper: “We have already taken action to empower headteachers to act but if re-elected we will legislate to deliver a full ban across Scotland.

“The SNP is on the side of schools and we will take every step necessary to ensure teaching in our classrooms is done without distraction.

“We have record levels of literacy and numeracy in our schools and this national ban will support pupils and teachers to build on that progress.”

UK GDP expanded by a stronger than expected 0.5% in February, official figures show, suggesting the economy was gaining momentum before the onset of war in the Middle East dashed hopes of recovery, Heather Stewart reports.

Good morning. ‘We don’t comment on leaks,’ is the usual government response to an unsanctioned lobby scoop. But this morning Peter Kyle, the business secretary, took a different response. Asked about a Times splash saying the government is making plans to deal with possible food shortages in the summer, caused by the Iran war, he told Sky News:

It is difficult for me, because, of course, these leaks are very unhelpful. But when people do read it, they need to be reassured that we are doing this kind of planning, and we are doing this kind of scenario planning.

Kyle contrasted his stance with Boris Johnson’s conduct in the early days of Covid, when the Tory PM “missed five Cobra meetings in the lead-up to it”.

The Times story, by Aubrey Allegretti, is not saying that the country is going to run out of food. But it does say that serious contingency planning is taking place, with an assumption that under a “reasonable worst-case scenario”, supermarkets might start running out of some items. Allegretti says:

Britain could face shortages of chicken, pork and other supermarket goods this summer if the war in Iran continues, a secret government analysis has found.

Officials have drawn up contingency plans for a “reasonable worst-case scenario” amid fears that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will lead to shortages of carbon dioxide (CO₂) which is critical to the food industry …

Farming and hospitality would likely be hit earliest and hardest, given CO₂ is used to help increase the shelf life of food such as salad, packaged meats and baked goods.

CO₂ is used in the process of slaughtering nearly all pigs and more than two thirds of chickens and the sector is not thought to have much by way of surplus supplies. While the government does have stockpiles, this was said to not be a long-term solution …

While there are not expected to be critical food supply shortages, officials expect there could be a lack of product variety in shops.

The “reasonable worst-case scenario” assumes that by June the strait of Hormuz is still closed, and there is no permanent peace deal. According to Allegretti’s story, officials are working on the basis that, in these circumstances, supplies of CO₂ could fall to just 18 per cent of present levels. This could have consequences for healthcare and the energy sector, as well as the food industry. Allegretti says one plan involves possible emergency legislation being passed to require factorsies to maximise CO₂ production.

In interviews this morning, Kyle did not dispute the story; instead he presented it as evidence of the government taking emergency planning seriously.

He told Times Radio:

I can tell you, because I’m in these meetings, the prime minister has been there since the very start, and he is going through personally and driving deep dives into lots of areas of resilience throughout our economy.

He said that at the start of the conflict he reversed the mothballing of the Ensus bio-ethanol plant in Teesside to secure supplies of carbon dioxide.

People should be reassured that we are doing this kind of action behind the scenes to keep resilience in our economy, so that when the full extent of what may or may not emerge, because this situation is still unfolding in the Middle East, you have a government that is acting with creativity and boldness.

Kyle told Sky News that supplies of CO₂ were “not a concern” now.

He went on:

If any of these things change, I will be up front with the public about it in advance so that we can prepare. But right now, people should go on as they are, enjoying beer, enjoying their meats, enjoying all the salads.

But also there are critical uses for CO₂ – MRI scanning, for example, water purification; it’s involved in our nuclear industry, our civil nuclear power industry, some defensive uses for it as well.

There’s lots of needs for CO₂, so these are the reasons why I took it so seriously way back to six months ago, not just in the last few weeks.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Keir Starmer meets executives from tech companies including TikTok, X and Meta in Downing Street to discuss restricting social media for teenagers. Last night, for the second time, MPs rejected a proposal to ban under-16s from using social media.

9.30am: NHS England publishes its monthly performance figures.

10am: John Swinney, the SNP leader and Scotland’s first minister, launches the SNP manifesto for the Holyrood election.

Morning: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, does a walkabout in South Wales Valleys town with the party’s Welsh leader, Dan Thomas.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Noon: The Covid inquiry publishes its report on vaccines and therapeutics.

Afternoon (UK time): Rachel Reeves attends IMF meeting in Washington. She is also doing a huddle with reporters.

4pm: Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, and Russell Findlay, the party’s leader in Scotland, attend a rally in Edinburgh.

I am afraid we are not able to open comments on the blog today because we do not have moderators available; I am sorry about that.

If you want to to contact me, you can use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.

I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.